You are not logged in.
In All things, there will be issues to overcome, but the better we get to automating the development and thinking of issues , like communication loss, power loss, to the automated workforce, and yes there will be solutions. But at the end of the day, people will be needed, and the costs assoicated will be higher than automated workforce, that is why a hybrid workforce of automated and human will be the best for all off-world activities.
Offline
you can also expect several machines or robots to break in one week period at a rate of around few percentages to maybe 5% or so. So you may as well start figuring that into the system right now and not hope for the best that that won’t happen.
Not neccesary that high. It won't happen. Just over-design a factor of XX.
Now, on Earth that number is acceptable, because with human labor, replacing/repairing these things is relatively cheap, compared w/ overall cost.
So they build your CNC machine that way, making it more reliable makes it either more costly to build and/or leads to lower output.
So you build a sturdier CNC... or use the same ones like on Earth but with a lesser output by using a lower powered motor.
We had a CNC at school that never broke down, it was a spanking new but second-hand one, originally for demonstrations, totally identical to the ones used in industry, BUT it had a less powerful motor, incapable of ripping the thing apart. (simplified)
In other words: it was working not on the bleeding edge, but well withing its design parameters. In fact, it was over-designed, with that puny motor (but still *vastly* superior to our old lathes etc, i assure you!)
the MERs are also over-designed, so will robots, CNC's etc be, if you want to use them w/o people.
Offline
I am reminded of where this needed to be going from an article that was writen by Jeff Foust titled Moon, Mars, baseball, and football.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/181/1
In that it was a very good analogy of what needs to be done to achieve both goals of going to the moon but to stay and of how to do the Mars direct or other configurations of any planned missions to Mars.
For the Moon do lots of small but successful steps very often for the moon.
Offline
For the Moon do lots of small but sucessful steps very often for the moon.
It is true the only way to go forward is to take one step after another but with a definite destination in mind. The hardest part of a journey is that first step.
So can we start, yes
Do we need new launchers to start, no
How do we start, we need to really plan where the best place to land our first permanent return to the moon. In short we need to use rovers on the Moon and we can do that reasonably cheaply and without the worry of having them survive more than 14 days. We need to do a good Mineral survey of the Moon especially the north and south latitudes around the peaks that have almost permanent light. If we find a decent flat spot near these peaks thats where we drop the rovers. The rovers will check the surrounding terrain and plant some homing beacons to allow further probes to come down right on spot.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
The worst part of this delay is the lost years before making the first step. Which in this case is re-invention of the space crafts of old that have already been there and done that. But now we are forced to enhance or new design a craft to do the same but still keep the cost done to a roar.
Offline
Well, the Third stage and command + lunar lander stages are about the full length of the space shuttle cargo bay , design a vehicle for one-way missions to moon for carrying automated driods for lunar development, starting with ground surveying and communication probe for lunar operations.
Design the lower engine stage a reusable design for return to LEO point of launch. Cargo stage will one way delivery to the lunar surface. Once there on the moon the cargo pods are disassembled for use on the Moon include engine assemblies. ( make sure alternative fuel sources can be driven through those engines ---> lowering costs with reused components / modules and modular one-way landers that can be reused in lunar vehicles.
That will provide site preparation and surveying and marking for construction, then we move the next stage in development construction of the first part of the lunar settlement. In all this process cost savings, recycle processing, and public relations ( managing the preception of space development) are key to the long term opportunities for public funded NASA Program. Privately funded Program is different it only requires manageing the shareholder preception of space development costs and you only need to show profits or process that will lead to profits in corporate activities.
Offline
So basically since the only place a shuttle will and continue to go into orbit is at the ISS. Then this is like turning the ISS into a command post, Launch site and missions build area for rocket launches to anywhere.
The only problem is how slow Nasa designs and moves, Retirement of the shuttle by 2010 and lack of funding to create that portion of what I would call the mini CEV unmanned.
Offline
I wasn't talking about NASA but Private Enterprise get involved and expand into space, Build a consortium across the world with like minded organizations who are already developing in space, and combine resources and if that does work in a consortium approach then through the free market Takeover Approach and merge the companies together into the first mega-space related corporation. That services government and private enterprise and has a large research budget to match with their large skill base .
Offline
I wasn't talking about NASA but Private Enterprise get involved and expand into space, Build a consortium across the world with like minded organizations who are already developing in space, and combine resources and if that does work in a consortium approach then through the free market Takeover Approach and merge the companies together into the first mega-space related corporation. That services government and private enterprise and has a large research budget to match with their large skill base .
some of us would like to call this: International Space agency.
Offline
Some others would surely prefer another name.
ISA is errr... Nevermind. Last time people discussed (with) them here, it turned out ugly fast. No need to do a search, The Society has asked to remove related posts on the forum.
Offline
Wasn’t there a private mission to the moon once to search for water? Maybe with little more members a private organization could start putting tellerobotics on the moon.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
I think that was Lunar corp. with radio shack as a sponsor for such a mission?
Offline
We could easily send to the Moon a rover using a Russian proton rocket. It has been done before the USSR was doing this for its lunkhod missions. They tended to be a bit unsucessful but I think this was due to the rather poor electronics available at the time, Even the apollo 11 had 2 computer failures as it was landing. We can useing modern electronics certainly make a more useful and flexible mission and rover.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
We know that a mere 20 million would be enough to purchase one but now how would you get it though customers, though all the other regulations and such... Could they instead build to order a stripped out unit and allow for customization of it on or near the launch site.
Offline
Some others would surely prefer another name.
ISA is errr... Nevermind. Last time people discussed (with) them here, it turned out ugly fast. No need to do a search, The Society has asked to remove related posts on the forum.
yes i agree, Mr. Dobson has ruined a perfectly good name. i thought about that name before i even heard of him.
Offline
Well I only thought about him because i recently stumbled on his spanking new messageboard...
BTW: didn't the Lunochods land ok?
(Very hazy... oh right... Maybe some of them didn't)
but they had 2 of them roving around for quite some time, great stuff...
Offline
Well the lunakhods where a very primative design we certainly can do better and if done right make them sample returns, compared to the USSRs robots we have that much mass to spare. Actually we may have enough mass to spare that they be powered by something better than solar and a limited fuel cell. This would allow a rover to be driven into those places we think there might be water or hydrogen deposits to see for sure.
Actually it makes sense to do it this way and since the possibility of those deposits of hydrogen in the permanently dark areas is of paramount importance to the future of the moon it should be done soon.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Ariane 5 Rockets are designed similar to the russian energia launch vehicle ( smaller cousin) but If the european's build a variation of the Ariane like the Energia then they might get 10-20 payloads in Geostationery orbit or even to the moon. They have the land capacity to assembly more launch pads and at the last meeting of esa states they invited all EU members not in the space venture to have representatives present and I think they are going to increase the membership of ESA Venture that would increase the funding.
Offline
Also the European Space Agency is currently working on designs for space houses and other concepts for human exploration on Mars and other planetary bodies.
Now ther race is on !!!!!!!!!
Offline
Leave the Moon to the private sector. They will be there in 15 years or so anyway.
Offline
Since the USSR used protons to launch there lunkhod rovers and they where effective it would make sense to use the updated protons to do the job for us. And since ESA has plans to have its own launch facility for protons at guyana and with the extra boost being at the equator gives this indicates more can be sent to the Moon. This could make for a decent operation.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Only problem from the American side is that Nasa can not pay for any Russian equipment.
But a Privately own organization or business could if it could make a profit by doing so.
Nasa needs high density maps and Radar imaging or sensing of resources such as water in addition to other minerals. Why not sell the data back to Nasa.
What else would Nasa need to get man back on the Moon?
Not only doing science but staying longer than a few days on the surface, what will the need?
Offline
We then have to design an automated means to create solar cells this will increase power and with power and a supply of oxygen and if possible water we then have the basics for furthering Mans domain to the Moon.
Mankind has much real science to do on the Moon and a lot more things to create. But it will be the work of generations to get all the answers we seek so a permanent facility is needed.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Well here is the solar cell resource reference that you just described. Some great graphics also.
http://www.spaceagepub.com/pdfs/Ignatiev.pdf
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlin … tovolt.pdf
Lots of chemical equations,
http://www.asi.org/adb/02/08/solar-cell-production.html
It would also be a good bit of science to create such an experiment while in orbit on the ISS. Sending up sample bags of soil combination possibilities and running the experiment on a platform while in space suits if human contact is needed to make it run or from remote link with lots of cameras in the vacuum of space. Also a gas collection system should be devised to gather any chemical discharge while heating the soils.
Offline
i think one of the highest priorities on MoonReturn should be inspection of the old equipment. i would land an expedition right on top of one of the sites mind you, what i would do is land between two or more of the old sites. there seems to be two major objections to this in my experience. first, the equipment would be damaged beyond repair, so there is no chance whatsoever of salvaging it. i think that`s a bit shortsighted. i think someone will eventually be able to use it, no matter what shape it`s in. if nothing else, crude tools could be fashioned from it. secondly there appears to be a bias towards the American equipment, the Russian is almost never mentioned.-------------------------------------------what we should also consider in MoonReturn is the fact that afterwards there may be interested parties wanting to salvage from MoonReturn. so from now on i think any OuterSpace ventures should bear in mind future salvage of their current ones. this should be written out as a code of sorts, kinda like the Intl Distress Law. this especially would hold true on planetaqry bodies where there is plenty of places to bury equipment. if the mission is just gonna leave it there, why not allow use of it for future ones? i see no reason, except greed, or pride.
Offline